This is an audio history lecture produced by The Teaching Company. It is the second set that I listened to from them. I got this product largely due to the positive experience with my first lecture series on the topic of ancient warfare. This present lecture series is on the history of Christianity during the era of the Reformation. I was more impressed with this lecture series than the first one I listened to and I am looking forward to enjoying more products from this company since they have done a good job picking qualified scholars and experts on the subjects being taught.

Those who are interested in church history and especially with the beginning of the modern era will enjoy these lectures a lot. Those who enjoy studying the Reformation would also benefit greatly from these lectures though it isn’t a historical theology course per se. The series title is accurate: it is on history during the era of the Reformation and not just Reformation history. So the approach of the lectures also encompasses those outside of mainstream Protestantism (Reformed and Lutherans) such as Anabaptists, Arminians and Catholics. Also the professor isn’t necessarily looking only at the Protestants perspective with the Reformation. The professor Brad S. Gregory has been trained and taught in various Catholic institutions of learning and presently is the Professor of Early Modern European History at the University of Notre Dame. From a historian standpoint Gregory is quite accomplished and more than capable in teaching about the history of this era having earned a doctorate in Princeton and early in his career was a tenured professor at Stanford two years prior to his move to Notre Dame. Overall his lectures are quite fair and in general one doesn’t hear his biases. I was pleasantly surprised at his articulation of what Martin Luther believed in terms of justification, salvation and the Gospel. He was able to accurately portray what the different side believed.

Though I am personally of the Reformed Protestant perspective I think listening to these lectures with biblical lens and discernment is still very helpful. For instance I enjoyed his discussion of background to the Reformation with Medieval beliefs and institutions. Situating the Reformation in its social context allows one to make better sense of what happened. In particular I thought the professor’s point about the medieval beliefs of providence and sacraments is important in which eventually Protestants would embrace and one doctrine and even become more specific with (the doctrine of providence) while also gradually rejecting the other because of Scripture (medieval concept of sacraments). His exploration of the external causes of the Reformation is one of the best I’ve heard. Gregory is conscious about historical methodology and in particular to explain why some became Protestants and why some stayed in Catholicism. His breakdown of the cause being anticlericalism, structural difficulties and the more counter-intuitive cause that medieval Christianity was actually more active and vibrant rather than the stereotypical assumption that Christianity was totally dead was surely food for thought. I do think he’s right about anticlericalism with the abuses during that era. From these lectures I learned that during this era the largest complaint about priests and church leadership was about clerical greed more than other moral failure. More controversial is Gregory’s point about a vibrant medieval Christianity paving the way for the Reformation. I do think the teacher is right in saying there was a lot of religiosity and religious activity and zeal during the medieval age as seen by the various volunteer organizations, projects and works of those centuries. Yet all these religious works didn’t pacify the mind and conscience of being right with God or earning righteousness with God which the New Testament describe as dead works. A more nuanced view is because of religiousness that doesn’t satisfy man’s biggest need with God is why the Reformation with its recovery of the biblical doctrine of Justification became such a historical movement.

These 36 lectures were quite comprehensive. Gregory spends quite some length discussing French Calvinists and also how politically the Scottish alliance with France influenced Scottish Protestantism. These two areas are among things I learned from this series that I didn’t know much about before. I also enjoyed the author’s point that the older view of historian that Calvin is some kind of insurrectionists is largely rejected and also going over the kings and queens in England and how it shaped English’s religious landscape. Also the lecture on the Thirty Years war was on a subject I didn’t know much about previously.

With such an excellent series that overall is helpful no matter what perspective one holds I was though a bit disappointed at the end of the series when Gregory talked about metric of success and answering the question of whether the Reformation was a success. He argued that from the assumptions of the three actors (Reformers, Catholics and Anabaptists) according to their own beliefs it was the Reformers that was the least successful. I beg to differ because the Gospel was recovered in the eyes of the Reformers. I think Gregory stresses too much on the Reformers’ goal of unity and while the Reformers originally never meant to start their own churches still the overall motivation for Protestants and Reformers was the recovery of the Gospel and for the Reformers that is a precious thing!

Much more could be said but these lectures were fascinating and informative.

Jim, thank you for this review. I wish more Christians would study church history and appreciate more how we are blessed to have God’s Word available in many different languages. Knowing some of the Reformers is a blessing too, especially Martin Luther. Blessings.

Amen! Church history is important to appreciate the blessings we have now. I enjoy learning about Luther no matter how many historical lectures I have heard over the years. I just finished and emailed you the guest post right now. I want you to know I have bad grammar so feel free to edit it when I send you the draft (I tried to catch as many of it as I can). Let me know if you got it. God bless you Frances.

Originally most reformers wanted to reform the RCC, not break away from it.
The RCC had a great deal more bad baggage than works soteriology. Admittedly not all of it is the realm of essentials of the faith. However it is my position that they drug way to many traditions of men into the protestant churches.
Long before todays inoffensive sinner sensitive movement and concert musical performances, I asked, why are we doing this or that and where is that found in the Bible.
We owe much to the Reformers, yet they were not without personal bias toward pet traditions and doctrines
In American, the majority of churches have needlessly unequally yoked themselves with the state by buying the hogwash that they need to have a 501-C3 tax status. it was a dirty trick pulled by President Johnson as vengeful payback to make all pastors shut up his immorality. Extricate yourself from this beast before it bites you in the…..end.
Examine every thing you do to see if it is explicitly taught, and pleasing to God
Nadab and Abihu did not do anything that was expressly forbidden, rather they failed to do what God wanted the way he wanted. Oh no, instead they did what was pleasing to themselves and thats not a good enough reason to do it.

This brought up a question in my mind which I did a quick little research on. I was wondering what the reformists thought of the Greek Orthodox Church. My findings seem to support what you said about their opposition to clerical greed rather than moral failure, because Martin Luther had positive opinions toward the Greek Orthodox Church. Thanks for this post, Jim. I had never thought of The Reformation from this perspective before.